Every time Rand Paul
opens his mouth, he seems to put both feet and a couple of other
appendages in it. There was that unfortunate interview with Rachel
Maddow, there was the “couldn’t get any gayer”
quip – and now
this.

In an alternately
opaque and all-too-revealing interview
with the Daily Paul web site, in which he tried to explain why he
endorsed Mitt Romney, Sen. Paul actually said “It doesn’t
mean anything.” I’m sure the Romney campaign will be
quite glad to hear that.

However, a few minutes
later he was infusing the endorsement with historic significance,
telling his no doubt baffled and increasingly skeptical listeners it
would open all kinds of doors for the “liberty movement,”
among them the promise that “we are going to have a big
influence over what happens with the platform.” Citing a
laundry list of his own personal legislative goals –
legalizing hemp, ending mandatory minimums for nonviolent crimes,
auditing the Fed – he declared “we need to look beyond
politics.”

To those Ron Paulians
still fighting in the trenches – in Iowa, for example, where they
won a hard-fought victory, or in Louisiana, where the Romneyites
called the cops and shut down the delegate-selection process –
hearing this must be absolutely infuriating. While the establishment
Republican leadership is using everydirty trick in the book –
and a few new ones – to stop Ron Paul’s duly-elected
delegates from being seated, their candidate’s son is
going over to the enemy!

Psychoanalysts of the
Freudian school are sure to have fun with this case – a classic
Oedipal conflict, as only a high dramatist like Freud might have
imagined it, acted out on the public stage. All that’s missing
is the Greek chorus.

But wait – I
think I hear them now….

While Rand is not his
own best defender, there are plenty of paid apparatchiks willing to
do the job for him. Jack Hunter, the “Southern Avenger,”
has apparently been assigned this task, and I can’t say I envy
him. How do you rationalize such an enormous betrayal? After all,
Rand didn’t even have the decency to wait for the national
convention: he’s a man in a hurry, a very junior Senator with
presidential pretensions, vice-presidential aspirations – and no
time for old-fashioned formalities.

In a piece posted on
the official Paul for President web site, Hunter makes the claim
that the late Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul’s friend and mentor,
“endorsed” George H. W. Bush in 1992, citing a Los
Angeles Times op ed presciently describing the horrors that
would befall us under the coming Clinton regime. The thesis of
Rothbard’s article is succinctly summarized by the author, who isn’t
here
to defend himself. “First and foremost, “ Rothbard
writes, “Bush ain’t Clinton.” If only Rand had
said something with similar pizzazz!

Hunter knows better
than to claim Rothbard ever endorsed Bush, because the public record
clearly shows otherwise. In a piece published in the
Rothbard-Rockwell Report, the man most responsible for
cohering what Rand refers to as the “liberty movement”
explains he is by no means endorsing, in the sense of advising
anyone to vote for any particular candidate. In an
exchange of views with this author, Rothbard
distinguished voting for someone or otherwise actively supporting
them and rooting for a candidate. The former impels a moral
and political sanction, while the latter involves looking at
politics as a spectator sport. If the good Senator from Kentucky
will revise and extend his remarks to make the distinction between
rooting for Romney and actually voting for him, I’d
be delighted to hear it. Otherwise, I would remind the Southern
Avenger that Rothbard has his own avengers, and they don’t
like it when his name and reputation are sullied in the service of
the sort of shameless opportunism he would have hated.

The sheer
superficiality of the promises Rand and his defenders are making –
“influence” over a platform no one will read, support
for Rand’s personal political career, and the legalization of
hemp (!) – is insulting. Doubly so in the context of the real
issue to be decided in Tampa, which is: will they even let Ron
Paul’s name be formally placed in nomination? Given the
timing, Rand’s embrace of Romney can fairly be described as
treachery. Or was that the price the son paid for the honor due his
father?

We’ll see. In
the meantime, this controversy underscores two major yet
interrelated obstacles in the path of the Paulian movement,
post-Tampa. The first is the politics and character of Senator Paul,
who owes his political career to support from all over the country.
Up until this point, he has lived in the house his father built on
foundations set down by such giants as Rothbard. If this is his
political coming of age, his idea of striking out on his own, we
don’t have much to look forward to. I have had many letters
and comments from readers reminding me of my previous column on this subject, which
asked the question “Can Ron Paul be Tamed?”
All I can add is: don’t say I didn’t warn you.

The masks are off, and
for the first time the junior Senator from Kentucky is showing his
nasty side: in the Daily Paul interview he characterizes his critics
as anarchists “ranting and raving on the internet,” and
claims to have received death threats from his father’s
supporters.

This is quite an
explosive charge to make on the eve of what will probably be the
most heavily-policed national convention in history, with uniformed
and covert law enforcement agents swarming over Tampa like …
well, each to their own analogies. Suffice to say that Rand’s
comments endanger what will undoubtedly be a beleaguered and
harassed Paul contingent in Tampa: for him to violence-bait the
movement he claims to support – and that put him in office –
defies belief, and I can think of no precedent in the history of any
political movement anywhere, unless we’re talking about the
role played by someone like this
guy.

I wouldn’t go
that far, but the effect is the same. In politics, timing is
everything, and the time to concede is not before the battle. If the
Greeks had adopted Rand’s “strategy” at
Thermopylae, we might all be speaking Persian today.

“I
came away from it feeling he would be a very responsible
commander-in-chief. I don’t think he’ll be reckless. I don’t think
he’ll be rash. And I think that he realizes and believes as I do
that war is a last resort and something we don’t rush willy-nilly
into. And I came away feeling that he’ll have mature attitude and
beliefs towards foreign policy.”

No
doubt some clever fellow along the lines of the Southern Avenger
will explain to us how this is really a devastating insult directed
at the Romneyites, because it is implicitly accusing their candidate of keeping his real foreign policy views close to his vest. Yet that
isn’t the case at all: Romney has repeatedly called for
extending and escalating the war in Afghanistan, and criticized the
Obama administration for even pretending we’re on the way out.
Romney has called for regime change in Iran, and attacked the very
idea of negotiating with Tehran, which is not all that surprising –
his principal foreign policy spokesmen include the
usual neoconservative suspects.
Romney’s stated views, and the views attributed to him by Sen.
Paul, are mutually exclusive: is Sen. Paul calling the candidate he
just embraced a liar? I’ll leave it to Rand’s
professional defenders to spin that one,

It’s
clear that Sen. Paul is not a chip off the old block when it comes
to foreign policy. There was that troubling vote in favor of
draconian sanctions on Iran, which are the prelude to an actual
military blockade of Iranian oil exports – and that means war.
Rand confides in us Romney’s supposed real views on questions
of war and peace, but what, I’d like to know is what are his
own real views? What, exactly, is a “mature” foreign
policy, as he puts it?

This
dizzy buzzword trivializes the importance of foreign policy – a
central pillar in the triad of issues that make up the credo of the
“liberty movement,” the other two being economic freedom and
the defense of civil liberties. In this he is so unlike his father,
who underscores his opposition to foreign adventurism and
empire-building at every opportunity. Indeed, Paul always said this
would be the first thing to go if he ever got into the White House, before cuts in
food stamps and aid to the truly down-and-out. His first-year trillion-dollar-cut in spending proposal is predicated on this.

Sen. Paul
and his defenders are right when they say this is a strategic
question, and what is clear is that the strategy they’ve
chosen is to de-emphasize the foreign policy aspect of the Paulian
credo. This, they believe, will give them access to the inner
sanctum of the GOP’s power players, and, not coincidentally,
advance Sen. Paul’s career as the hereditary leader of a
thoroughly tamed Paulian movement. I’ve pointed out before the
disparity between what Ron Paul continually says, and what the
official campaign ads said, as far as emphasis on
anti-interventionism: in the latter case, what was said was very
little. Now this internal tension is coming to a head.

Every
movement has organizational and ideological conflicts, but this one
promises to be wide and deep. The endorsement was the equivalent of
throwing a hand grenade into one of those amazing Ron Paul rallies,
where thousands of college students are chanting “End the Fed!
End the Wars!”

Rand Paul
has a penchant for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time in the
wrong venue. From the Maddow disaster to the “couldn’t
get any gayer” remark to this latest controversy, he just
keeps stepping on land mines. By the time he reaches the end of his
first term, he may have blown his presidential ambitions sky-high.
And if he keeps alienating and attacking his own donor base, his
reelection chances might not look so hot either.

There is
a difference between compromise and surrender. Whether Sen. Paul
will learn this before the end of his political career is an open
question: his father learned it early on. While I’ve been
critical of the Senator in this space, I’ve given him credit
when it was his due, and I’ve always given him the benefit of
a doubt. God knows we don’t have many libertarian Senators.
Sadly, what this latest debacle indicates is that we may not even
have one.

This is a
major reason we here at Antiwar.com don’t get involved in
political organizations or causes: we credit any and all politicians
who show signs of understanding the centrality of the foreign policy
issue to the fight for human freedom. Ron Paul and the movement his
candidacy inspired made that connection, and that is why we have
analyzed and critiqued it every step of the way – but no candidate, organization, or “movement” leader gets a blank check. As a chapter in the
long and proud history of anti-imperialism in America, the full
story of the Paulian movement is still being written. While the
outcome is uncertain, the rapidly developing storyline is telling us
important things about the leading characters.

In any
case, that history will not be authored by campaign functionaries
and would-be grand strategists, but by the grassroots movement that
sprang up quite independently of the official campaign. The
overwhelming response of that movement – which Sen. Paul
derides as “ranting and raving on the internet” –
to the Romney endorsement has been decidedly negative. In his Daily
Paul interview, the Senator speculates that a good portion of the
millions who voted for and supported his father will be influenced
by his endorsement, and that the only ones dissenting are those
freakish anarchists.

He is
flattering himself – not unusual in a politician, but in this
case he really is making a rather high jump and, as usual, stumbling
over his own words. The number of actual votes Sen. Paul’s
endorsement garners for the GOP may number as high as the dozens,
although I doubt it. One anticipates the spectacle of Sen. Paul
going out on the hustings and campaigning for Romney with growing
horror, albeit not with disbelief.

NOTES IN THE
MARGIN

There is
a silver lining to this dark cloud: in his Daily Paul apologia, Sen.
Paul throws cold water on the idea his father will ever endorse
Romney.

On another note: it’s great to be back to work, but I really did need that vacation. Not
that I spent it in Hawaii: I spent 99% of it working in my garden,
and I’m looking at my handiwork even as I write. Ah, the joys
of bringing order out of chaos! Now I’m back to making sense
out of the seeming senselessness of our foreign policy: there’s
a metaphor in there somewhere, but I’ll spare my readers this
one time and simply say: It’s great to be back. I am more
appreciative than ever of the constant support and encouragement
Antiwar.com’s readers give me, and I work hard to enjoy their
confidence. Our recent fundraiser, while scary at times, was a
success due to that support, and everyone on staff here does their
utmost to earn that support every day.

It’s
important that supporters of an anti-interventionist foreign policy
maintain their own institutions and organs of opinion, outside the
political process and the broader political movements. That is one
of the lessons of the Rand Paul debacle, and why we have
always insisted on the organizational independence and completely
nonpartisan character of this web site. It’s important to keep
the banner of liberty and
peace flying, no matter what some quasi-“libertarian”
politician-on-the-make says.

Yes,
our quarterly fundraisers are always a little hairy, but one way you
can make them less so is by becoming a monthly contributor –
stretching out your total contribution over a year, and doing so
effortlessly. This gives us a cushion and reduces the sense of
crisis that has infused our recent fundraising effort. Go
here to sign up.

Rand would be back practicing medicine if he didn't have his fathers name. Our friends in the Lobby rule by using blackmail, intimidation and bribery. Maybe they have something on Rand. There is the possiblity that the Pauls are using the old good guy, bad guy technique. That leaves Rand in the tent and Ron outside keeping up the pressure. I never have believed Romney is the warmonger that he has made himself into. We will see if he can extricate himself from the hole he has dug for himself. He just loves playing to whoever he thinks will get him ahead. The country is sick of wars and warmongers. The guy who will win is the guy who gives a realistic plan for peace, or at least pretend to.

Rand would be back practicing medicine if he didn't have his fathers name. Our friends in the Lobby rule by using blackmail, intimidation and bribery. Maybe they have something on Rand. There is the possiblity that the Pauls are using the old good guy, bad guy technique. That leaves Rand in the tent and Ron outside keeping up the pressure. I never have believed Romney is the warmonger that he has made himself into. We will see if he can extricate himself from the hole he has dug for himself. He just loves playing to whoever he thinks will get him ahead. The country is sick of wars and warmongers. The guy who will win is the guy who gives a realistic plan for peace, or at least pretend to.

So the man is endorsing draconian sanctions on Iran, no doubt of a similar nature to those which led to the needless deaths of half a million children in neighboring Iraq, and yet can stand at the podium and declare that “I don't think that a civilization can endure that doesn't respect life.”
Surely an indication then that the only words of this statement to have any validity are the first three.

Only an idiot would vote for Romney because Rand endorsed him. Rand was speaking to an audience on Fox who are idiots anyway. What exactly did Romney tell Rand?

The big story is the sanctions vote which I've only recently learned about. Rand is wading in the Rubicon. Sanctions are a prelude to war. Has he been asleep for the last 20 years? Where does his special knowledge that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon come from? Has anyone taken him to task regarding these unsubstantiated paranoid beliefs?

In his defense he did block it in order to put language into the bill saying that the President wasn't receiving a blank check for war. It was going to be passed anyway. The President nor most of Congress care about the rule of law. The President will go to war if he wants to anyway and Congress will let it slide because they don't care. Rand is going to find out that Congress is a vestigial structure. Four years is a long time to see what other choices Rand makes. The liberty movement shouldn't put all their eggs in one basket. There are other people out there that could use some good press and be given a voice to reach people.

IMV "The Lobby' minions long since infiltrated and took over the campaign
Looking back to the Dondero fiasco and realizing the agents provocateur
had been with the inner circle since its inception as the minions do to
every name that appears the field of politics in every nation it is no surprise
then for many of us to see this "unraveling" of the whole Ron Paul Legacy
as it has been planned from the start.
Not for one instant do i believe Ron Paul has even known there were vampires
in his nest where he treated all members with respect and real concern
so the PAIN now is his, finding his whole life dedication has been usurped
from the inside and quite possibly the son, in his NEED to become greater
than the Father, has been one of those minions since teenage years when
a boy rebels against his Fathers rulership and many boys never outgrow that
rebeliousness so today that PAIN is Ron Pauls shared only with Carol
when they know they are in total privacy forever putting a good face on it.
This fantastic movement was never going to be allowed to get any real traction
The best results of this nasty exposure of the underbelly o f the campaign
must be the masses finally realzing the power and ruthlessness of "The Lobby".

IMV "The Lobby' minions long since infiltrated and took over the campaign
Looking back to the Dondero fiasco and realizing the agents provocateur
had been with the inner circle since its inception as the minions do to
every name that appears the field of politics in every nation it is no surprise
then for many of us to see this "unraveling" of the whole Ron Paul Legacy
as it has been planned from the start.
Not for one instant do i believe Ron Paul has even known there were vampires
in his nest where he treated all members with respect and real concern
so the PAIN now is his, finding his whole life dedication has been usurped
from the inside and quite possibly the son, in his NEED to become greater
than the Father, has been one of those minions since teenage years when
a boy rebels against his Fathers rulership and many boys never outgrow that
rebeliousness so today that PAIN is Ron Pauls shared only with Carol
when they know they are in total privacy forever putting a good face on it.
This fantastic movement was never going to be allowed to get any real traction
The best results of this nasty exposure of the underbelly o f the campaign
must be the masses finally realzing the power and ruthlessness of "The Lobby".

If you go over to the Campaign for Liberty's truly awful website you will see two articles posted dealing with foreign policy, one from April and one from February. Nada mas. Those of us who tried to work for the Paul campaign on foreign policy were marginalized by a group of insiders in the campaign who clearly believed that it was better to worry about light bulb and washing machine standards than it was to discuss Iran. Hasn't anyone noticed that folks like Anthony Gregory, Tom Woods and Judge Napolitano were pretty much absent from the campaign because they were made unwelcome and in some cases advised to go away? Jesse Benton was clearly the heart of the problem but he had plenty of support and now the chickens have come home to roost with the absurd Rand Paul endorsement. So let them continue to work on becoming viable in the GOP system. I predict that Ron Paul will be made invisible in Tampa and that the GOP will spend the next two years devising ways to eliminate his supporters at all levels in the party. Just watch it happen. And then we will see Jesse and Rand going for gold in 2016, but by that point none of us will care anymore and we won't have much of a country left to care about.

A good litmus test for idiot politicians is how they pander to Israel. Rand's position on this is very telling. He morally supports the aggressive state, but he doesn't support funding it. It seems that Rand has a habit of making vague, moral statements that tick people off, but seems to be more reasonable about hard policy.

I am not interested enough in this topic to read all the material so forgive it I repeat.

1. Rand is a moron, His opening his mount to vomit craziness is nothing new.

2. Ron is the biggest nepotist in congress. He has 61 family members on his payroll. He shilled for Romney in the debates two ways. First by taking enough votes away from Romney's nuttier foes to make sure none of them got traction (Romeny is a weak candidate, but I'm sure you noticed that.). Second, by never saying anything against Romney during the course of the debates.

Hypothesis is that Ron was trying to get the veep slot for Rand, and Rand's endorsement is additional evidence of that scheme.

I've picked all this up from other sites, but haven't bothered to keep track of the links. (Might have been thinkprogress that was tracking debate stuff.)

Mitch Daniels is veep guess on one of the sites I frequent, so Ron & Rand's whoring would not seem to have worked (no offense to whores meant).

If Ron Paul can't even keep his own son on board the program, what hope is there for his brand of the liberty movement? In a country where people will sell their souls at the drop of a hat, the only force that can exert liberty is power, and the only way to get power is to promise government goodies.

This is the real reason the libertarian movement never gets anywhere and never will in the Ron Paul incarnation. If even 25% of the country was as visionary and "got it" like Ron Paul does, he might have stood a chance. But Ron is beating his head against a hoplessly corrupt Beltway, which runs a country with a primary ethos of materialism and me, me, me…and if government will get me, me, me goodies, so be it.

I think Rand realize this, and is merely trying to play within a totally corrupt system in a different style than his dad, by getting power first and then using it towards an imperfect liberty. Where he crosses the line within such a system and sells his soul, or if anyone can even keep their soul in such a system, is anyone's guess.

—> Romney: "He just loves playing to whoever he thinks will get him ahead". I agree with that one.
In the 2012 BBC documentary, (Its on Youtube. ) 'The Mormon candidate'. John Sweeney states that Romney's father's opposition to the Vietnam war is what cost him the Republican nomination. One could argue that this lesson has not been lost on Mitt.

As Rand said in the recent interview on Peter Schiff's radio show, if he and
Ron's supporters who have taken over multiple GOP State positions were not
to endorse Romney, who IS the party's choice for President, then they would be
forced to step down from their state conventions. All progress in State Conventions
and Party Leadership achieved by Ron Paul supporters would be wiped out.

Your statements on Jesse Benton, I agree with.
Yet, "I predict that Ron Paul will be made invisible in Tampa and that the GOP will spend the next two years devising ways to eliminate his supporters at all levels in the party. Just watch it happen."
We will see, yet I think its too hard a job. The Paul supporters are more motivated. They are not going to fade away.

1. I agree with Justin on his (well documented) statements about Romney
2. There is a anti-Obama frenzy of many Republicans. All they want is allies to defeat Obama, and they believe all will be good in the world if this can be done.
3. Its still the Republican party, there are Republicans with varied Libertarian viewpoints. The antiwar viewpoints are gaining sway, yet they are not yet the dominant Republican viewpoints. Paul supporters have to be disciplined.

There is a difference between endorsing a candidate because one is a party official and he is the party representative and specifically endorsing particular views held by that candidate that one knows are dangerous. Rand did NOT have to endorse Romney's foreign policy pronouncements.

Romney is for indefinite detentions and bombing Iran. I'm not sure what all this "drama" and "confusion" is about. What's the best Mr. Rand Paul can get out of this situation? Picked as the VP slot on a ticket that's more or less doomed–at which point he will travel around the nation praising Romney and his policies before their eventual humiliating defeat in November?

In the extreme off chance Romney wins and Rand becomes VP (a position which it typically symbolic and meaningless…unless man-tan Romney drops dead from a heart-attack), Rand will be side by side with Romney as Tehran is on fire nodding his head and smiling for the cameras?

Another great column!
The Rand Romney endorsement debacle at least has made clear who is a real Paulian and who is not. Rand might be a slightly better than average GOP senator but that's it. He doesn't claim to be a libertarian and while he wants to coast on his Dad's coattails, libertarians know a sheep from a goat. Rand's endorsement is meaningless except to further alienate him from Ron's many friends.
Rand will either get better, as a result of being screwed by his now pals in the GOP establishment, or he will sink to the bottom as a one term pathetic curiosity. Stay tuned.

Another great column!
The Rand Romney endorsement debacle at least has made clear who is a real Paulian and who is not. Rand might be a slightly better than average GOP senator but that's it. He doesn't claim to be a libertarian and while he wants to coast on his Dad's coattails, libertarians know a sheep from a goat. Rand's endorsement is meaningless except to further alienate him from Ron's many friends.
Rand will either get better, as a result of being screwed by his now pals in the GOP establishment, or he will sink to the bottom as a one term pathetic curiosity. Stay tuned.

Not really Johhny, The guy that will win is the the mega corporations, international bankers and last but not least who does the best job of conkink Istael,s tube. The president is no longer elected, he is selected. If what you said was true Ron Paul would win in a walk. They dont even invite him to debate anymore because he will hand the governmental lackey,s thier ass. The so called elite will rig the numbers if necessary. Its money and votes and fuck the citizens.

Also, this comes to mind. Kucinich's endorsement of Kerry after the Democrat Party repeatedly kicked Kucinich in the face, both in the primaries and at the convention in a way very similar to the treatment given Ron Paul. And then the infamous invitation to board Airfarce One after which K came out for the health care and actually flipped his vote… wasn't it? Yet Kucinich launched a campaign to impeach Obama. Both of those cave-ins were seen in the same light by K supporters as Rand's latest. Giraldi's point above should be noted.

I brought up the issue of Rothbard's 'endorsement' of Bush over Clinton in a comment over Giraldi's full column a few days ago, but because I didn't make the distinction about what it meant noted by Justin, I got a lot of thumbs down over it. My point was not to support Rand's endorsement of Romney; I do not. The point is, if you buy into the premise of 'reforming the GOP' that both Rand and Ron are subscribed to, this calculated compromise/'betrayal' is exactly the thing the concept leads to. So if you back that plan, you tolerate its consequences, it' a package deal.

Because a lot of Paul supporters are also onboard with the "takeover" plan, along with Ron himself, it seems, I cut Rand some slack. Going with the wrong plan does not mean your heart is in the wrong place. We will see from Rand's voting record going forward, where exactly his is.

Murray responds to a question regarding his "endorsement" of Johnson over Goldwater in '64. This parallels the recent accusation made by Jack Hunter that Rothbard endorsed George H. Bush in '92, which is apparently meant to validate Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney.

The article provides a contrasting of/comparison given the two evils presented. Rothbard ends by saying:

"A vote for Bill Clinton is a vote to destroy the last vestige of parental control and responsibility in America. A victory for Bush will–at least partly–hold back the hordes for another four years. Of course, that is not exactly soul-satisfying. What would be soul-satisfying would be taking the offensive at long last, launching a counter-revolution in government, in the economy, in the culture, everywhere against malignant left-liberalism. When oh when do we get to start?"

Well, that revolution commenced with Ron Paul's 2007 presidential campaign, and arrived in full force in 2012. Foreshadowing this, Rothbard was asked in '89 who he would support in the '92 election. He goes on to discuss Ron Paul who could "knock the socks of Bush" (http://youtu.be/Fq8hNQpyrSY).

So, what's the difference between Rothbard's "endorsement" and Rand Paul's?

Rand made a positive endorsement of Romney. There was no attempt to contrast Romney and Obama. In fact, Rand Paul is going to campaign for Romney even in light of there being a revolution underway. Any attempts at comparing Rothbard's actions with that of Rand's are severely lacking.

An excerpt from a speech called "The Current State of World Affairs" by Murray Rothbard – Q & A. Recorded at the 1989 Texas State Libertarian Conference.

Murray responds to a question regarding his "endorsement" of Johnson over Goldwater in '64. This parallels the recent accusation made by Jack Hunter that Rothbard endorsed George H. Bush in '92, which is apparently meant to validate Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney.

The article provides a contrasting of/comparison given the two evils presented. Rothbard ends by saying:

"A vote for Bill Clinton is a vote to destroy the last vestige of parental control and responsibility in America. A victory for Bush will–at least partly–hold back the hordes for another four years. Of course, that is not exactly soul-satisfying. What would be soul-satisfying would be taking the offensive at long last, launching a counter-revolution in government, in the economy, in the culture, everywhere against malignant left-liberalism. When oh when do we get to start?"

Well, that revolution commenced with Ron Paul's 2007 presidential campaign, and arrived in full force in 2012. Foreshadowing this, Rothbard was asked in '89 who he would support in the '92 election. He goes on to discuss Ron Paul who could "knock the socks of Bush" (http://youtu.be/Fq8hNQpyrSY).

So, what's the difference between Rothbard's "endorsement" and Rand Paul's?

Rand made a positive endorsement of Romney. There was no attempt to contrast Romney and Obama. In fact, Rand Paul is going to campaign for Romney even in light of there being a revolution underway. Any attempts at comparing Rothbard's actions with that of Rand's are severely lacking.

An excerpt from a speech called "The Current State of World Affairs" by Murray Rothbard – Q & A. Recorded at the 1989 Texas State Libertarian Conference.

What Rand ought to do (and the opportunity is still there for him) is to educate his "Tea Party" followers about the problems concerning our foreign policy. He seemed to be doing this initially by calling for cuts in militarism, but what now?

There's a difference between trying to look level-headed and actually being level-headed.

bebe will get anything he wants from the republicans or democrats. America has become a colony of Israel. How come both parties are pressuring Obama to release that traitor Jonathan Pollard. Believe me it will happen because Israel wants it to happen. What lows have we fallen to America when a little pissant of a country can tell us what to do and we will do it.

The only point I agree with in this pretty nasty column on Rand endorsement is that Rand was too quick to endorse Romney. He should have to waited to after the Tampa, especially given the ongoing efforts at the state conventions and the lingering bad blood among some Ron Paul supporters from the hardball and sleazy tactics of the Republican establishment which should have given time to settle down. But how far do Rand's critics want to go with this? No, an endorsement is not nothing, but people can simply disregard it if they disagree and vote someone else or even not vote at all. Also, none of these critics of Rand are in his shoes. It isn't very hard to throw stones when you are a pundit like Raimondo or a media personality like Alex Jones, and you also happen to oppose or are deeply skeptical of working within and with the Republican party.

Rand in the Daily Paul interview and in other interview has made clear he supports the same policy agenda as his father–and this includes foreign policy–and that he is working to advance it on all fronts. Rand simply has a more low key style than his father and he wants to internally persuade Republicans to the libertarian position.

Regarding Jack Hunter's point on the similarity to Rothbard's apparent endorsement of George H.W. Bush over Clinton, Raimondo's rebuttal seems technical and semantical. Rothbard may have labelled it "rooting" as opposed to an endorsement in his journal, but he fact is he published a detailed argument for supporting Bush over Clinton in the LA Times (I btw think Rothbard's analysis was correct on all the reasons he mentions). Rothbard could easily have stayed silent on the matter, unlike the junior Senator of KY where there is an expectation of support for the Republican nominee (which Rand for some time had promised to do).

People need to cool down, and give the man a chance to prove himself on actual policy. This endorsement is not the biggest deal. How many endorsements were made by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons just in last primary season?

Raimondo brings up the Iran sanctions vote. That is a significant issue and a real difference with his father, but it also happens to be the only real difference in Rand's voting record so far with his father. Remember he represents conservative KY as a Senator. That seems like a very good record overall. Do you think Ron Paul never made a political move open to criticism or voted the wrong way something? Rand is a friend, not an enemy.

I just want to add I did not see any death threats posted against Rand online, but I did actually see addresses get posted which implies threats or harassment, though admittedly this a very tiny amount of posters.

I share your concerns about Campaign for Liberty's basically watering down the agenda on foreign policy. Tom Woods voiced a similar concern recently in a video and talking about the head of Campaign for Liberty being fired for his seeming lack of interest in foreign policy. However, I don't necessarily blame Rand or Jesse Benton for this, or am I ready to give up on this movement. Lots of things are going on behind the scenes, and to the degree there is a real problem I think we can fix it.
If we can continue to grow the liberty movement in the Republican, I think we will be able to dramatic changes in our foreign policy and other people will arise if Rand isn't able to lead on foreign policy.

The alternative is some sort of third party situation. The Libertarian Party has never broken 1% in its history. Third parties never last if you follow history. If you want to really change things, you are stuck with the two major parties practical speaking.

It is not a "package deal." I would remind you that George Romney, Mitt's dad, never endorsed Barry Goldwater, nor did any of the liberal Republicans who opposed Goldwater. That didn't mean they were leaving the Republican party.

Yes, supporting acts of war against a nation that is no serious threat to the US is indeed "a significant issue and a real difference with his father"; and not only do sanctions pave the way to full-fledged war, but they inflict great suffering on civilians in the meantime. Recall, for instance, the 500,000 children who perished as a result of US sanctions on Iraq during the 1990s—a ghastly toll that former Secretary of State Albright declared "worth it." If Rand is willing to thus use human lives as disposable pawns in whatever game it is you believe he's playing, he's no friend of mine—nor to liberty. It also renders absurd your claim that he has "the same policy agenda as his father." I doubt the elder Paul would ever harm innocents—especially via an interventionist foreign policy(!)—to achieve a goal. (Which reminds me: just what is Rand's goal in all this anyway? None of his supporter seems to know.)

And it's not like this "strategy" was only recently adopted. He's been braying about the Iranian "threat" since his Senate campaign—which is about the same time he picked up his pal from NED and started whispering sweet nothings to the Lobby. (See, for instance: http://spectator.org/blog/2010/04/22/rand-paul-an… ) Either Rand knows where his bread is buttered—and has since around 2010—or he's a tractable twit. And his *unqualified* support of adamant warmonger and *un*constitutionalist Romney only seals the deal.

His several commendable votes and statements on civil liberties and other constitutional issues, then, are rendered moot by his support (both formal and implied) for the very expensive, immoral and blowblack-laden policy that gives our rulers an excuse to pillage us, trash the constitution and deprive us of liberties in the first place. Liberty, prosperity and peace are a "package deal"; it's all or, in the end, it's none.

And do you think it a coincidence that his latest proposals to protect American liberties have been decidedly milquetoast? His proposed bill to limit drone surveillance on US soil contained so many broad exceptions that, even if it passes, it'll be worthless. And his move to "privatize" the TSA—i.e., outsource the unreasonable, humiliating searches and irradiation to tax payer-subsidized contractors—was downright laughable. Seems to me like a man trying to reassure his establishment pals of his "reasonableness" even as he makes a halfhearted attempt at mollifying his father's supporters by offering these hollow bills.

And "halfhearted" is the key word here. Mark my words: as donations from alienated Paulians dry up, Rand will snuggle ever closer to the establishment. Of course, when the GOP leadership figures out that Rand is of no use to them—when he doesn't bring the bulk of the liberty movement to heel for them—, they'll throw him aside, too.

Yes, supporting acts of war against a nation that is no serious threat to the US is indeed "a significant issue and a real difference with his father"; and not only do sanctions pave the way to full-fledged war, but they inflict great suffering on civilians in the meantime. Recall, for instance, the 500,000 children who perished as a result of US sanctions on Iraq during the 1990s—a ghastly toll that former Secretary of State Albright declared "worth it." If Rand is willing to thus use human lives as disposable pawns in whatever game it is you believe he's playing, he's no friend of mine—nor to liberty. It also renders absurd your claim that he has "the same policy agenda as his father." I doubt the elder Paul would ever harm innocents—especially via an interventionist foreign policy(!)—to achieve a goal. (Which reminds me: just what is Rand's goal in all this anyway? None of his supporter seems to know.)

And it's not like this "strategy" was only recently adopted. He's been braying about the Iranian "threat" since his Senate campaign—which is about the same time he picked up his pal from NED and started whispering sweet nothings to the Lobby. (See, for instance: http://spectator.org/blog/2010/04/22/rand-paul-an… ) Either Rand knows where his bread is buttered—and has since around 2010—or he's a tractable twit. And his *unqualified* support of adamant warmonger and *un*constitutionalist Romney only seals the deal.

His several commendable votes and statements on civil liberties and other constitutional issues, then, are rendered moot by his support (both formal and implied) for the very expensive, immoral and blowblack-laden policy that gives our rulers an excuse to pillage us, trash the constitution and deprive us of liberties in the first place. Liberty, prosperity and peace are a "package deal"; it's all or, in the end, it's none.

And do you think it a coincidence that his latest proposals to protect American liberties have been decidedly milquetoast? His proposed bill to limit drone surveillance on US soil contained so many broad exceptions that, even if it passes, it'll be worthless. And his move to "privatize" the TSA—i.e., outsource the unreasonable, humiliating searches and irradiation to tax payer-subsidized contractors—was downright laughable. Seems to me like a man trying to reassure his establishment pals of his "reasonableness" even as he makes a halfhearted attempt at mollifying his father's supporters by offering these hollow bills.

And "halfhearted" is the key word here. Mark my words: as donations from alienated Paulians dry up, Rand will snuggle ever closer to the establishment. Of course, when the GOP leadership figures out that Rand is of no use to them—when he doesn't bring the bulk of the liberty movement to heel for them—, they'll throw him aside, too.

I have a problem with Rand's Iran sanctions vote too, but I think it is wrongheaded to condemn him solely for this vote when the politics are very difficult and I do believe he is against a US attack on Iran. With respect to the shortcomings you mention with his TSA and drone legislation, I am not personally familiar with the details, but assuming what you say is true, I would imagine it reflects a desire to actually pass the legislation as opposed to making it symbolic exercise –a two-steps forward, one step back approach. Remember the TSA has its supporters too (like the TSA union) and so do the droners (e.g., border patrol, law enforcement) that you need to take account of if you want to actually pass the legislation. This could be a foot-in-the-door piece of legislation where you try to build on it later by enacting broader reforms.

I would say this as someone who sympathetic to Rand's position (at least at this juncture) and who is willing to give him a chance on his efforts to approach things in a different manner than his father is that he needs to stay in touch with and explain to the grassroots his rationale for the way he is doing things. He did this (though after-the fact) with the Romney endorsement and I think it helped calm down things a lot.

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].